Donations for War on Iran, Tim Canova

[BainsBane]

"Progressives" are all aflutter over donating to Tim Canova, the challenger for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' House seat.

It's interesting to see how eager people are to contribute to someone who forcefully argues against the Iran Nuclear Deal and sides with Likud. He is so proud of his position that he posted an editorial celebrating it on his website:

Canova is a staunch opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, which Wasserman Schultz supports. "Iran never destroys its centrifuges, and it gets a $100 billion windfall at once," he laments. "Iran gets it all, and within weeks, if not days, Iran is testing ballistic missiles," he says, shaking his head. "Iran is a regime that can't be trusted." Wasserman Schultz, meanwhile, lost "a lot of credibility" among her constituents by voting for the agreement, Canova charges.

That peacenik Debbie. She just can't be trusted with all that peace-treaty approving she does.

Canova is very proud of his opposition to peace with Iran, as its prominence on his website reveals. That same editorial he posted distinguishes him from Sanders as someone who "knows what he's talking about."

For one, in contrast to Bernie Sanders, whose guiding ethos seems to be "Bash the Millionaires and Billionaires—Details TK," Canova actually knows what he's talking about. Although he's never held office, Canova is an expert on banking laws as a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale. He has been churning out scholarly works on interest rates, regulatory affairs, and loan practices for decades. (His fierce criticism of big banks is delivered with a scholarly mien quite unlike Sanders's street-corner shouting.) . . .

Canova also attributes Sanders's loss in the crucial New York primary to Israel. "He started off at [the New York debate] saying 'I'm 100 percent pro-Israel.' But that was the last thing he said that was pro-Israeli."

https://timcanova.com/news/insurgency-left

It's quite astounding that many of the same people who cannot forgive Clinton for her vote on Iraq are now eager to donate to a candidate who opposes peace with Iran. Of course, without that peace treaty, the only alternative is war, which is exactly what Likud wants.

Keep sending those checks to ensure we get war with Iran. We just can't have peacenicks like Debbie in Washington.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. CDS is pretty strong among the usual suspects here, and it blinds them to the larger picture.

When they don't get their way, they see RED.

[Dawson Leery]

2. DWS or bust.

I will NOT being giving this neo-con one penny of money.

[Her Sister]

4. With DWS!

http://www.debbiewassermanschultz.com/

[Her Sister]

3. Wow! Thanks BainsBane~

[BainsBane]

5. It would appear that peace matters less

Than political networks.

[Hortensis]

27. Speaking of...

Miami Herald last April:

The Center for Responsive Politics shows the top metro areas where donors live for each candidate. The highest amount of donations for Wasserman Schultz came from Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, Orlando, and Sarasota-Bradenton. For Canova, the top metro areas were New York, Los Angeles-Long Beach, the Boston area, Washington D.C. area and Chicago.

What the citizens of this precinct that elected Wasserman Schultz a number of times thought of all this out-of-state manipulation was not known. They've not been polled but will be in November, of course.

[BainsBane]

36. As I noted below

A shrewd move on Canova's part to endorse Bernie. Now he's got the donations flowing in.

[MohRokTah]

6. K&R eom

[SaschaHM]

10. You didn't realize that when they accepted Tulsi Gabbard into the fold?

And Marcy Kaptur, who gets a pass on her pro-life views while Tim Kaine is like the sign of the apocalypse. You endorse Bernie and you can get away with anything.

[BainsBane]

12. Incredible, isn't it?

It turns out issues don't matter at all.

[Hortensis]

45. Lol. Waay down the list. When's the last time

you heard the outrage over the 12 OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES who didn't get equal treatment from the party? To put it mildly.

Where's the outrage over Bernie's many cynically dishonest and unprincipled attempts to manipulate and abuse the primary process for his benefit? Shredded reputations and even careers of many people in his way were just...collateral damage in their "revolution."

[BainsBane]

19. You're more generous

On the subject than I am.

[NYC Liberal]

8. K&R

[mcar]

9. K&R

[brer cat]

11. K&R

[JRLeft]

13. And DWS is pro apartheid against the Palestinian people.

[BainsBane]

14. But not pro-Israel enough for Canova.

Obviously Canova is not supporting Palestinians. This takes it even further. You do realize the anti-peace treaty position is pro-war with Iran. The Israeli govt was furious because it interrupted their plans to bomb Iran back to the stone age.

Seems like the only reason he is being supported is because he endorsed Bernie. Shrewd move on his part. Now the cash comes flowing in. And he gets no flack from "progressives" despite his right-wing positions on Iran and immigration because he backed Bernie.

It truly is fascinating to see all the excitement about donation to a pro-war candidate. I guess Iran qualifies as a "progressive" war.

[JRLeft]

15. I do, and he's wrong on that issue, but better than her by a wide margin on most.

Especially economically.

[BainsBane]

18. Be specific about those differences

How exactly is he better? And how do those differences justify cash donations for war on Iran?

You do realize if Trump is elected the GOP will nullify that peace treaty, and Canova will be helping them do it. And that does mean war.

[BainsBane]

29. Again, please tell me about that wide margin.

[JRLeft]

32. The Trade, banking deregulation, Marijuana, fracking, money out of politics, and health care.

Light years better.

[BainsBane]

33. I'm sorry, I'd like specifics

Last edited Mon Jul 25, 2016, 05:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Not generalities. How exactly is he so much better that it justifies and end to a peace agreement with Iran? What are the concrete benefits that justify promoting a congressman who would support a GOP-Likud war on Iran? What about him makes up for the lives of Iranians, and for the ensuing clusterfuck that would inevitably follow?

It occurs to me that we are now faced with the citizens equivalent of a vote for war. I wonder if deciding war on Iran is acceptable because the guy endorsed Bernie should prompt some reflection on how people can continue to hold Clintons war vote against her while actively promoting a candidate who opposes peace with Iran?

Of course, selective outrage about war is in keeping with cries to return to the America of fifty years ago, resurrecting the heyday of the US capitalist empire, when the global south was firmly under the thumb of the US and the white bourgeoisie reaped the profits from their exploitation and death. It's clear the problem is not capitalism or empire but making sure the right people prosper from it. Canova's positions on Iran, Israel, and immigration are in keeping with that.

I expect this means we've heard the last about Iraq since war is now a "progressive" value.

Or could it be, as in the Tulsi Gabbard situation and the pro-life congressional candidate whose name I don't recall this second, issues don't matter in the least; what counts is they endorsed Bernie, and absolutely anything is justified because allegiances based of politcal patronage trump everything else.

[Ken Burch]

42. There is no case you can make that DWS is more progressive than Tim.

Tim wants pot legalized...DWS wants the drug war to continue(that's what opposing legalization means).

Tim opposes TPP...Debbie supports it(opposition to TPP is the only pro-worker position).

Tim opposes the payday usury industry, Debbie supports its continued existence.

Tim is pro-labor, DWS basically isn't.

And the fact that Tim opposed the Iran deal doesn't make Debbie a vote for peace.

If DWS was sitting in Congress when Hillary called for a declaration of war against Iran, she would automatically vote for what HRC wanted there.

[RonniePudding]

16. Where is she on the Iran Nuke deal hammered out by our president?

[JRLeft]

17. She supported it

[grossproffit]

41. Talk about propaganda. FFS!

[UtahLib]

20. K&R. nt

[Jamaal510]

21. K&R

[Her Sister]

22. KnR. Thanks for your OP and posts in this thread also.

This is awful! What the...

[greatauntoftriplets]

23. Unreal.

[MADem]

24. What's "progressive" about this guy again?

I'm getting a little long in the tooth, but I have some expertise in that end of the world. I should not like to be recalled to service in my dotage, and that kind of language isn't at all helpful.

Why is he shopping GOP talking points? Does that kind of crap sell in that district?

[BainsBane]

28. I guess Iran is a "progressive" war.

[Ken Burch]

39. He supports cracking down on payday usury, wants us to stop subsidizing private prisons,

opposes the failed drug war, is pro-labor, is anti-TPP.

For just a start.

[Thinkingabout]

25. The old saying the devil you know just may be better than the devil you

Don't know. He's a hawk, war with Iran would be very bad.

[JI7]

26. they don't give a shit about the issues. they are just full of hate

internet warriors who get off on hate and going after specific people they see as part of some conspiracy .

[Cha]

30. Wow! That's some position to take.. I hope Debbie wins!

Thank you for exposing this, BB!

[pnwmom]

31. K & R

[RAFisher]

34. I gave Tim $10 but months later after I found out his Iran position I regretted it.

Still no love for DWS. Stupid decision after stupid decision. I still can't believe she was the only democrat in our state side with Governor Voldemort and AG Pam Blondy over medical marijuana. It's not just that she sided with those two morons but she literally represented the most pro-medical marijuana part of the state.

Back in February when I donated I thought he was legit but of course Tim proved to be a pro-war nut. O well, this is Florida and we can't have nice things.

[BainsBane]

35. Yeah, I used to live in Palm Beach County

I sympathize.

[Ken Burch]

43. You are only doing this because Tim called for DWS' resignation as DNC chair.

If HRC wanted a declaration of war against Iran, DWS would automatically vote for it. She would never defy Hillary on foreign policy as president. Debbie has never been a voice for peace at any point in her congressional career.

Your whole argument here is a strawperson.

[BainsBane]

50. It most certainly is not a strawperson

I wrote this because of arguments for people to send money to Canova. I can't help observe that the same people who refuse to forgive Clinton for a vote 15 years ago suddenly are rallying to fund someone who opposes peace with Iran.

I can't speak to what DWS would or wouldn't do. None of that, however, justifies promoting a warmonger as some leftist hero, and sending money to fund his opposition to the peace with Iran.

However, Clinton set the negotiations with Iran into motion, so if DWS supports that because Obama and Clinton do, fair enough. It's a hell of a lot better than war. You see, I think war and peace actually matter more than the politics of personality and patronage. I guess that's why I just don't qualify as a "progressive." If I were, I'd understand that what matters is not the war but who the warmonger backed in a primary in a single election.

I would caution you to stop projecting your own approach to politics onto me.

[JustAnotherGen]

37. K and R

[Ken Burch]

38. Why would you even bother supporting DWS for another term?

OK, Tim is to her right on the Iran deal(a moot point, since the agreement is already in place and there is no way for Congress to undo it).

It's one stance, and it's a stance he can't actually do anything about.

DWS supports the private prison industry(a right-wing position) keeping marijuana illegal(another right-wing position)and the payday usury industry(a reactionary position). Tim takes the progressive stance on all three of those issues and also supports ending the economic war against Cuba(something DWS takes the Miami exile line about, as far as I know).

They are both equally pro-LGBTQ and pro-choice(and those two issues are the only ones DWS can fairly be called "progressive" on).

Why is DWS worth re-electing to you?

What's the point?

If HRC gets in, she'll just ditch the House seat and accept some sort of appointment.

[BainsBane]

47. Not a fan of nuking Iran back to the stone age

Particularly when the reasons are about resentment over a primary contest that is already finished.

She's not my congressperson, so I won't be electing her. But I sure as hell am not sending money to Florida to help bomb Iran off the planet. But I get that war is one of those flexible issues, that's okay as long as the people promoting it supported a particular politician in the primary. I keep forgetting how important it is to ensure the party stands for nothing other than tribal divisions related to an already decided primary context.

I guess if I were a real "progressive," I could pretend a vote for a war 15 years ago was an outrage while sending checks to fund someone who opposes a peace treaty that is keeping us from war with Iran. Silly me thinking people might actually care about something, like an issue, or human life.

And if you think a president Trump wouldn't go back on that deal, you're not paying attention. The GOP ignored the Geneva Convention. You don't think a little peace treaty will stand in their way, particularly if they get support from Democratic congressman like Canova.

[Ken Burch]

55. Electing Tim would do nothing to make war with Iran more likely.

I'm against bombing Iran, too, but Congress won't have any say on the deal. Either HRC or Trump could launch missile strikes anytime they wanted. And we can assume that if the missile strikes were launched, DWS would support them.

She isn't for peace. She never has been.

The Iran thing doesn't outweigh the fact that Tim is massively more progressive than DWS on everything else.

[ericson00]

40. this more goes to the idea that Canova is in it to win it

given that the Iran deal's poll numbers are still bad, and particularly bad among Jewish voters in Florida; I find it pretty ironic tho that a Bernie supporter like Canova takes such a stance because more Bernie supporters are to the left of Hillary and DWS on Iran, and other Middle East related issues.

[BainsBane]

53. Clearly they aren't to the left of Hillary or DWS on the issue

Not if they are willing to ignore or justify Canova's position on Iran.

[ericson00]

64. Bernie was all about faster re-establishment of normal relations with Iran

in the primaries and at the debates, and a survey of his fans here and around other sites showed they were with him, and wanted an even more dovish deal.

The reason they can support Canova despite his stance on the Iran deal is because she opposes DWS. It's that simple. Contrarianism.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Or, donations to send medical marijuana patients to prison?

Also, whether one supports the Iran Deal or not, we didn't have war with Iran before it was made, so it's disingenuous to imply that opposing it means "war with Iran". It means going back to the sanctions and situation as it stood prior to the deal.

[BainsBane]

48. It absolutely means war.

The reason Likud and its allies were so outraged about the peace treaty with Iran is that it interfered with their plans to bomb Iran. The peace treaty is the ONLY thing holding that war back. There is NOTHING disingenuous about it.

It has been interesting to learn that opposition to Clinton's vote in Iraq actually had nothing to do with the war and everything to do with Clinton, so much so that we now have "progressives" making excuses for war mongering.

But pot. Yeah. Sorry. It's just not something I think about. I keep forgetting how important the bourgeois cause of our age is, that it trumps a minor issue like war. We'll just add war on Iran to women's reproductive rights, unfettered profits for gun corporations, genocidal gun violence, the Minutemen and the Wall, a trillion and growing for the F-35, environmental racism, vast inequality in k-12 education, and all the other issues that just aren't really important. Resentment over an already decided primary and political patronage relationships stemming from that is what should determine the party into the future. Who cares about consistency and integrity anyway?

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Argle bargle.

None of that shit has anything to do with FL-23 or DWS's phenomenally craptastic record, bain. Sorry.

[BainsBane]

51. The issue is hypocrisy

It's about whether people actually oppose war or are selective about it. The support for Canova answers that clearly.
It turns out all that really matters is that he endorsed Bernie, and like Tulsi Gabbard and the pro-life congresswoman Bernie endorsed, the issues matter far less than political patronage. Canova's anti-peace position is acceptable because he endorsed Bernie. It turns out the issues aren't what matters at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. no, the issue is you waging one of your battles against another straw army.

You talk about projection, which is funny. Meta-funny, in fact. Meta-Meta-Funny. Almost as funny as you calling me "bourgeois" for opposing the preferred primary candidate (FL-23, house seat election, against a fellow Democrat in a primary still undecided, again, jury) of Payday Lenders.

Who hasn't moved on from the Presidential primary? Not me. Hillary Clinton won, and I am enthusiastically supporting her for President. I'm fully behind our Presidential nominee, Our ticket, AND our extremely progressive platform.

Have you read our platform? Have you compared it to the GOP platform?

I know which side I'm on, Bain, and I know you agree with me 100%. Point by point, side by side, comparison of our parties and platforms. Down that line. Right? UNITY!

But.... the topic here is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not The Platforms, Presidential Primaries, or Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

I've been against DWS since she allied with Sheldon Adelson to kill medical marijuana reform in Florida in 2014. You know, that "bourgeois" issue, totally meaningless to the lives of real, actual...

well, oh, wait, maybe not meaningless to this sick 50something year old woman currently facing a 10 year prison sentence in Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Florida, you know, over that "bourgeois" medical marijuana thing.

[BainsBane]

66. Here's the deal

None of these donations would be going to Canova except for the anger at DWS related to the primary and the fact that Bernie endorsed Canova. That obviously outweighs any concern about US policy toward Iran and Israel. I dare say there are all kinds of congressional candidates with more progressive platforms that aren't getting this influx of donations from out of their states.

I didn't mention payday lenders as a bourgeois concern and you know it. That is a deliberate mischaracterization of my point. I was very clear that I do not share the central concern on pot policy that you do. Not that I oppose legalization. Of course not, but it doesn't rank anywhere on my priority list.

[BainsBane]

68. Are you actually arguing that war with Iran isn't a real issue?

and just a strawman?

[Warren DeMontague]

69. No, I'm saying that you have constructed an opponent

For your argument here that is entirely in your head. I've done this dance before.

The bottom line is that, one, there isn't a whole lot of distance between the positions of DWS and Canova on the Iran deal.

Two, as has been pointed out, there is a tremendous amount of difference between the IWR vote of 2002 and support (or lack) for the Iran deal.

Three, for me at least, the IWR isn't a deal-breaker anymore.

So that's it for the thesis of your OP, right there.

Hillary won the primary, and like Bernie Sanders I am enthusiastically supporting her. But I am not obligated to support DWS against her democratic primary opponent .

And in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of people seem to think she has done a poor job as a political leader. Pelosi and Reid don't seem to be too distraught to see her resign as DNC chair.

[BainsBane]

70. You were in the thread

Where people were talking about sending checks. That wasn't in my head.

The key difference between Iraq and Iran is that the later could still come about if critics of the peace treaty succeed.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. That's right. And I am strongly supporting Tim Canova.

I would prefer she be replaced, in her primary, by a better Democrat for a number of reasons, but probably near the top of the list is that DWS is regarded by many on cannabis as the Democratic "prohibitionist in Chief".

It's not important to you, okay. It is to me.

You're correct about me donating to his campaign, but that doesn't mean I - or anyone else here, really - bear any resemblance to the straw caricatures you have created in this thread.

Here are examples of what I mean:

the same people who cannot forgive Clinton for her vote on Iraq are now eager to donate to a candidate who opposes peace with Iran.

That's a strawman.

selective outrage about war is in keeping with cries to return to the America of fifty years ago, resurrecting the heyday of the US capitalist empire, when the global south was firmly under the thumb of the US and the white bourgeoisie reaped the profits from their exploitation and death. It's clear the problem is not capitalism or empire but making sure the right people prosper from it.

Yep. Strawman, again.

add war on Iran to women's reproductive rights, unfettered profits for gun corporations, genocidal gun violence, the Minutemen and the Wall, a trillion and growing for the F-35, environmental racism, vast inequality in k-12 education, and all the other issues that just aren't really important. Resentment over an already decided primary and political patronage relationships...

straw, straw, straw, and more straw with a side of straw on a lovely bed of artisinal straw.

Lastly, as has been pointed out, DWS and Canova are on the exact same page re: the Iran deal at this point- originally opposed, now in support. So that kind of makes this whole exercise extra-pointless, does it not?

[Ken Burch]

60. There is nothing in common between HRC's Iraq War vote and Tim's position on Iran.

The question of going to war was still a live discussion when HRC cast a vote she knew could lead to nothing but war. She knew Bush would never stop short of war.

The question of bombing Iran is out of Congress' hands. And it won't matter what anyone in the House feels about the issue.

And the deal doesn't stop Netanyahu from bombing Iran. He can launch a missile strike anytime he wants. It's just that he wanted the US to do it for him.

Bernie's supporters have never minimized the need to defend choice(it goes without saying that Bernie would have cared just as much about choice as HRC and that we didn't have to have a female president to get THAT commitment)the evil of the wall, the Minutemen, or any of the issues you mentioned other than the F-35(you can't really believe we have to make people pay to go to college to be able to improve K-12 education-it isn't either or, and it achieves to improve K-12 if going to college is still a privelege for the few ). It's just they've pointed out that nothing progressive can be done without challenging corporate control of politics.

HRC has only been progressive on safe issues-issues rich people approve of progressive policies being implemented on. They are important, but none are transformative and none of her positions in the primaries were ever going to liberate anyone from oppression.

And DWS supporting the Iran deal doesn't erase the fact that she's a conservative on pay day usury, private prisons, TPP, the embargo on Cuba and the drug war. She is masssively to Canova's right. It has nothing to do with the primaries or tribalism.



You've cheerypicked one issue out of many, and it's an issue that doesn't matter

[Warren DeMontague]

62. some people I have a beef with came out today, and said they like Rocky Road ice cream

I will now provide you with a 20 page long breathlessly authoritative, tautologically self-validating thesis on why Rocky Road ice cream has been the cause of all human oppression and suffering for the past 5,000 years.

[NCTraveler]

46. When DWS comes out on top...

This group will then transfer their support to the Republican running against her. That is their first choice anyway. Goodman and his fans have proven this cycle that a lack of coherent thought is considered a virtuous trait by some.

[BainsBane]

52. When is the primary there?

[NCTraveler]

56. Aug 30. Nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. August 30

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Please don't interrupt the Two Minutes Hate for DWS

[Ken Burch]

63. It has never been hate(and certainly never Orwellian).

DWS simply hasn't had any achievements as DNC chair.

She didn't come up with effective strategies to elect Democrats.

She caused unnecessary bad feelings in the primaries.

And if she was that strong a HRC supporter, she should have stood down from a job in which campaign neutrality is expected.

A lot of Clinton people wanted her gone, too-it wasn't just Sanders people.

What, exactly, do you feel is defensible in her performance at the DNC?

[BainsBane]

67. That way well be the case

But this isn't related to her position as soon to be former party chair.

[Chathamization]

59. Tim Canova now supports the Iran deal

In his own words. I'm not sure his weak support of the deal is that different from Wasserman Schultz's weak support; she was undecided for a long time and only came out in support of the deal last September.

[BainsBane]

65. He's only been a candidate since the deal was made

To claim that he now supports it because it's law is absurd, since his criticism of it has all been since it was negotiated.
The above link is from his own website. Clearly he hasn't decided to think so better of it to take it down, but he has deleted his info on Israel from the issue page.

[Ken Burch]

61. This proves you are wrong about Tim's position on Iran:

https://twitter.com/tim_canova/status/738020253435760640

His position on that is the same as DWS'.

Your entire jeremiad on this is discredited.

[BainsBane]

73. I posted content rom HIS website.

Now it looks like he's backtracking, but not so much he's taken down the editorial he proudly posted on his website.

Your argument would seem to be that Canova discredited Canova, never a good thing.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

72. Tim Canova was on RW hate talker Joyce Kaufman's show today.

The two had a very pleasant conversation and Kaufman wished Tim the best of luck in his race.

A little about Kaufman:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/09/129125/allen-west-hire/

One of the places West liked to talk was Kaufman’s radio show on WFTL in Florida, making over 100 appearances over the past four years. Like her new boss, Kaufman is also no stranger to offensive statements:


— She said Jewish people voted for President Obama because “they don’t embrace being Jews anymore.”

— She said Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan “looks basically like Ed Schultz in drag.”

— Discussing illegal immigrants on her show, she said: “If you commit a crime while you’re here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it.”

— At a rally with West standing by, she said: “Calling illegal immigrants ‘undocumented workers’ is like calling a drug dealer a pharmacist without a license.” “There are people who want to change your way of life, and some of them may be your gardeners,” she said.

— She also blamed undocumented immigrants for pollution and disease: “We are destroying the environment in this country at an incredibly accelerated pace because of this group of people who have come to this country and have to live a very substandard existence. They don’t have mufflers on their cars. I mean, it sounds like silly nonsense, but it’s not. The cumulative effect is huge. They live, you know, 10 to a household; they bring disease with them.“